Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Debate
    • Overview
    • Positions
    • Arguments
    • Evidence
  • Resources
    • News
    • Bibliography
    • Authors
    • Organizations
  • About
    • Blog
  • Contact
Login     Register for an account
ARGUMENTS
  • Recent
  • Alphabetical List
  • Most Active
  • Random

COMPARE

As a party to UNCLOS, U.S. would be able to prevent revenues from being redistributed to non-desirable actors

The U.S. safeguard against such transfers becomes operative through the interaction of the convention and the 1994 agreement. Convention Article 161, paragraph 8(d) requires consensus of the ISA council to distribute economic benefits, pursuant to Article 162. Section 3, paragraph 15(a) of the annex to the 1994 agreement provides the United States a permanent seat on the council by virtue of being the largest economy on the date of entry into force of the convention.

Keywords: 
Revenue Sharing
Related Quotes: 
  • Even if ISA gives money to national liberation movements, U.S. could exercise its permanent veto to stop it
  • U.S. has absolute veto rights over preventing royalties from being distributed to undesirable actors
  • U.S. needs to ratify UNCLOS to be able to counter regional blocs with ISA
Parent Arguments: 
  • Revenue sharing agreements in UNCLOS are not a reason to reject the treaty
Counter Argument: 
  • Under UNCLOS, U.S. revenues from offshore resource extraction would be redistributed to non-desirable state actors

VERSUS

Under UNCLOS, U.S. revenues from offshore resource extraction would be redistributed to non-desirable state actors

UNCLOS is silent on how UNCLOS nations that receive Article 82 royalty revenue should spend it. Recipients are apparently free to spend the funds on military expenditures or simply deposit them into the personal bank accounts of national leaders.

Keywords: 
Article 82
Related Quotes: 
  • UNCLOS bureaucracy would redistribute money to dictatorships and be managed by corrupt and unaccountable U.N.
  • U.S. seat on ISA board won't necessarily prevent article 82 revenue from going to our adversaries and dictatorships
  • UNCLOS has no restrictions on how recipient nations under article 82 have to spend the money
  • Article 82 redistribution payments could be used to prop up corrupt governments
Parent Arguments: 
  • U.S. should reject UNCLOS because of its revenue sharing agreements
Counter Argument: 
  • As a party to UNCLOS, U.S. would be able to prevent revenues from being redistributed to non-desirable actors

Open Debate Engine Status Block

There are currently:
  • 2 positions
  • 129 arguments
  • 1312 quotes
  • 220 citations
  • 590 news articles

There are 166 orphaned quotes, or 13% of existing quotes.

  • Arguments
  • Authors
  • Cases
  • Citations
  • Evidence
  • News
  • Organizations
  • Positions
About  —  Contact  —  Updates
Terms of Use  —  Privacy Policy
Site powered by the Open Debate Engine.